emacs_git_stash_push

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states that a stash is created. It does not mention that git stash push also reverts working-tree changes, how staged versus unstaged changes are treated, or any side effects on the repository state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four words long and every word contributes meaning. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple operation with only two optional parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is minimally viable: it states the core operation and the schema fully documents the parameters. However, it lacks any broader context about the effect on the working tree or how this tool relates to the other git stash operations, which would help an agent use it more confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new stash' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like emacs_git_stash_list or emacs_git_stash_pop, but the wording is specific enough to avoid confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emacs_git_stash_pop or emacs_git_stash_list. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, leaving the selection logic entirely to the agent's inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.